Selective union 'rule'
Since an appeals court this year struck down a National Labor Relations Board diktat compelling businesses to promote union membership via recruitment posters, it stands to reason — even for the governmentally challenged — that the recipients of federal contracts shouldn't be forced to abide by the same rejected rule.
That's the argument from the National Association of Manufacturers and the Virginia Manufacturers Association, which have filed a lawsuit challenging a Labor Department regulation forcing these employers to display posters that detail workers' rights to unionize. The rule applies to federal contractors and subcontractors, which employ about 22 percent of the workforce, the AP reports.
What part of “coerced speech,” as flagged by the court, do these cats not understand?
Private businesses have Barack Obama to thank for this. Among his first-term executive orders was the poster rule, ultimately issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, in May 2010, reports bizjournals.com.
“The courts have already ruled that these posters ... extend beyond the intent of the National Labor Relations Act,” said Linda Kelly, NAM's senior vice president and general counsel.
Sadly, forcing businesses that receive federal contracts to comply, despite the court ruling, isn't surprising for an administration that has no qualms about making up the rules at it goes along.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- American contrasts: Post-Ferguson
- Thanksgiving briefing ...
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The Hagel ‘resignation’: Toadies need apply
- U.N. Watch: Cheering on Iran
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone
- The Box
- PSEA oops: Letters & the law
- Obama’s amnesty: Abuse of power